so, i read this article, which i've included at the end - which basically states that if women want to retain any power at all over their bodies, they should not, under any circumstances, vote for Sen. McCain
(please pay particular attention to his utterly inane and idiotic answers to a couple questions posed to him on the subject of sex education in the US)
*i have since added the above quote, thanks to Kirk, which leaves absolutely no doubt on the matter....
and, i realized that as far as abortion goes, i have quite a few things to say...
why isn't everyone Pro-Choice? - now, i'm not being obtuse or naive here - what i mean to say is - shouldn't all women, everywhere, want to keep their reproductive rights, um, THEIRS? - i mean, don't we have a right to say what we do with OUR OWN bodies? - no matter if you happen to personally feel that abortion is wrong - what right do any of us have to judge another woman in her reproductive choices? - we're not in her head, living her life! - what right do we have to impose our beliefs upon another?
“I
hope every woman in this country, whether they agree with Roe or they
disagree with Roe, whether they themselves would make one decision or
another, will come together and say: Pro-choice means that the Government respects the individual, and isn't that really what our country is all about?” --- Barbara Boxer
this compunction to pass judgment on other people in matters which are none of our collective business is really troubling to me - and to pass legislation on such matters is offensive to me - i happen not to be personally opposed to abortion - i have never had to make the choice, but i do understand that by the time it comes down to abortion, it is truly a hard decision to make - but, there are times that it is necessary (for any number of personal, medical, or economic reasons) - whether you agree with WHY it is necessary for someone else to make this choice, is none of your business - it is not your life - it is theirs
it is MINE
“Too many people in America believe that if you are pro-choice that means pro-abortion.
It doesn't. I don't want abortion. Abortion should be the rarest thing
in the world. I am actually personally opposed to abortion. But I don't
believe that I have a right to take what is an article of faith to me
and legislate it to other people. That's not how it works in America.” --- John Kerry
unfortunately, that does not seem to be the way America is heading
as an adult woman - is it too much to ask for the government to stay out of my sex life AND to stay out of my reproductive rights?
(and
i'm only dealing with abortion here, not any of the other personal
issues which the government also has no business poking its looong nose in)
apparently, it's like asking for the moon and the stars - actually - you might as well ask for your own galaxy!
Rewind...
As a young lawyer in the Reagan administration, Supreme Court nominee
Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote that "the Constitution does not protect a
right to an abortion," declared his firm opposition to certain
affirmative action programs, and strongly endorsed a government role in
"protecting traditional values."
-- No Right to Abortion, Alito Argued in 1985
Fast Forward...
well, he's certainly held up his end - restricting access to reproductive procedures and not even pretending that he and his like-minded Justices are ruling with womens' health in mind
April 30, 2007
In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's regressive ruling on April 18 in the two abortion ban cases, women's rights advocates in Congress have introduced the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) S. 1173/H.R. 1964. This legislation, if enacted, would override the Court's decision in the two cases, Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood and Gonzales v. Carhart,
in which the court upheld vaguely-written bans that could prohibit the
most commonly used and safest abortion procedures after 12 weeks of
pregnancy.
In upholding these bans, five conservative Supreme Court justices have effectively overruled a core element of Roe v. Wade
that had been reinforced in many Court decisions: the requirement that
legislative restrictions on abortion must contain an exception to
protect the woman's health. The gravity of the Court's decision as it
relates to the health of all women of child-bearing age is immense. It
is a giant leap toward overturning Roe and, at the same time,
signals approval to the state legislatures with anti-abortion
majorities to move forward with abortion ban bills that would go into
effect when, and if, Roe falls completely.
With the two recent Bush-appointed justices—John Roberts and Samuel A.
Alito, Jr.—and their anti-abortion-rights colleagues Antonin Scalia,
Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy, it seems only a matter of time
that Roe will be overturned by the high court. States will
then be allowed to re-criminalize abortion; doctors and their patients
would face the threat of criminal investigation, prosecution, and even
imprisonment. Doctors will not risk the consequences, and women's
reproductive health clinics will close. We all know what will take
their place.
--- Freedom of Choice Act would Guarantee Roe Protections in U.S. Statutes
!!!
if i'm not mistaken, the other guy could croak any second...gee, i wonder who would take his place...
never mind the fact that uncontrolled birth rates would be a disaster for the US - um - see India - see China
The erosion of a woman's right to choose began
almost immediately after the Roe decision, she said. In 1976, a law
known as the "Hyde Amendment" outlawed the use of federal Medicaid
funds to the poor for abortion services. -- http://www.counterpunch.org/higgs02012006.html
!!!
Since the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, anti-choice
legislators in the states and in Congress have systematically eroded
reproductive rights. State and federal restrictions already in place
make reproductive freedom an empty promise for many American women.
Many of these restrictions fall most heavily on low-income women and
teens. For example, numerous states and the District of Columbia
currently restrict low-income women’s access to abortion; and the
federal Hyde Amendment bars access to abortion care for low-income
women who rely on the federal government for their health care.
Likewise, many states dangerously restrict teenagers’ access to
abortion care.
--- ACLU - Support the Freedom of Choice Act
...because the smart thing to do is restrict access to these services to people who can't afford them and to people who are too young to be having babies...does anyone NOT see the socio-economic implications that this amendment has wrought and will continue to spawn?
and, thanks to Truthdig, i found this the other day...
Last November, the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists outlined the ethical guidelines for doctors. Those who
have moral objections to performing a legal abortion for a woman don't
have to do it, but they do have to refer her to another doctor or
health care provider. [ACOG]
We'll quote the ACOG: "Physicians and other health care
providers have the duty to refer patients in a timely manner to other
providers if they do not feel they can in conscience provide the
standard reproductive services that patients request. In resource-poor
areas, access to safe and legal reproductive services should be
maintained."
It would seem to be a straightforward, ethical guideline, but then the guys at the Bush White House decided to get involved.
Friday, HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt in effect put an asterisk
on the ACOG guideline saying, actually, he doesn't' think doctors
should have to refer women to another doctor before they kick them to
the curb. [HHS]
Leavitt: "I am writing to express my strong concern over
recent actions that undermine the conscience and other individual
rights of health care providers ... It appears that the interaction of
the ACOG Bulletin with the ACOG ethics report would force physicians to
violate their conscience by referring patients for abortions or taking
other objectionable actions, or risk losing their board certification."
A) What? ACOG never said anything about losing board certification.
B) Leavitt expresses concern about the well-being of the
doctors, which is all well and good, but what about the well-being of
women who could be thrown out into the cold, unable to find accessible
health care?
C) And according to OB/GYN Wendy Chavkin of Columbia University, Leavitt's policy may also allow physicans to deny emergency contraception to women who have been raped.
and so, here we have further intrusion into matters which are NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS - and, not only that, but going even further to threaten action against the doctors themselves! - in essence, completely leaving women-in-need without options
now, compound the above with this excerpt...
NYTimes
November 22, 2007
In health centers at
hundreds of colleges and universities around the country, young women
are paying sharply higher prices for prescription contraceptives
because of a change in federal law.
The increases have meant that some students using popular birth control
pills and other products are paying three and four times as much as
they did several months ago. The higher prices have also affected about
400 community health centers nationwide used by poor women.
The change is due to a provision in a federal law that ended a practice by which drug manufacturers provided prescription contraception to the health centers at deeply discounted rates. The centers then passed along the savings to students and others.
Some Democratic lawmakers in Washington are pressing for new
legislation by year’s end that would reverse the provision, which they
say was inadvertently included in a law intended to reduce Medicaid
abuse. In the meantime, health care and reproductive rights advocates
are warning that some young women are no longer receiving the
contraception they did in the past.
Some college clinics have reported sudden drops in the numbers of
contraceptives sold; students have reported switching to less expensive
contraceptives or considering alternatives like the so-called
morning-after pill; and some clinics, including one at Bowdoin College
in Brunswick, Me., have stopped stocking some prescription
contraceptives, saying they are too expensive.
“The potential is that women will stop taking it, and whether or not
you can pay for it, that doesn’t mean that you’ll stop having sex,”
said Katie Ryan, a senior at the University of North Dakota in Grand
Forks, who said that the monthly cost of her Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo, a
popular birth control pill, recently jumped to nearly $50 from $12...
...and what do you get? - young women everywhere - trying to get an education - at needless risk for pregnancy - do i need to spell out the socio-economic implications of this?
(btw, i'll have to look into that year's end legislation fix - if any of you have any info on that, please share it)
in 1995, my senior year in college, i paid 5 dollars a pack - for my BC - Ortho-Cept 28 - which, i am still on - it is subsidized here in New Zealand, in the socialized health system
(here, i do want to say, that if i get any moralizing on sex before marriage and how people shouldn't be having sex in college, i will be ignoring you)
it is possible to be sexually responsible (meaning have a healthy sex life and being responsible about it) if one is FULLY and EXHAUSTIVELY educated about sex
it is NOT possible without the proper education
and, how many times can i repeat this - abstinence-only sex-ed DOES NOT WORK - in fact, it makes the situation worse, especially among teens! - and WHY do we want teen girls at risk of getting pregnant though ineffective, counter-productive, and downright dangerous faith-based initiatives?
The evaluation, conducted by Mathematica Policy Research Inc. on behalf
of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, examined the
impact of the abstinence-only-until-marriage programs funded under the
1996 federal welfare reform law.
Through the study, more than 2,000 children were randomly
assigned to groups that received abstinence-only counseling and those
who received no counseling. Over the next four to six years, numerous
surveys were done to determine the impact of these programs on the
behavior of the kids.
Researchers found no evidence that these abstinence-only programs increased rates of sexual abstinence.
The study also showed that the students participating in these
abstinence-only programs had a similar number of sexual partners as
their peers not in the programs, and that the age of first sex was
similar for both groups too.
"The basic takeaway message is that there are no differences
between the two groups on any behavioral outcomes," says lead study
author Christopher Trenholm, a senior researcher at Mathematica Policy
Research...
"The data coming forth now is simple proof -- solid, unassailable
evidence to back up what many of us have known from the get-go," says
Joy Davidson, a certified sex therapist in New York City who is on the
board of directors of the American Association of Sexuality Educators,
Counselors and Therapist.
"There have been studies that have been done over the last
few years at least that have made it quite clear that abstinence-only
education is not only a waste of money, but it is a danger to young
adults as well."
--- 'Abstinence Only' Sex Ed Ineffective
-----------------
Recent surveys show that 70 percent of U.S.
teens have engaged in oral sex by the time they reach 18, and more than
45 percent have had intercourse at least once. More than 70 percent of
young women and 80 percent of young men approve of premarital sex,
according to a study published recently in the Review of General
Psychology.
In addition, studies show
sexually transmitted diseases are spreading at an alarming rate among
young people. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports
that nearly half of the nation's new cases of STDs each year occur
among adolescents and young adults. A recent study found that teens who
took pledges of virginity as part of abstinence-only sex ed classes
ultimately had STD rates similar to other young people and were less
likely to use contraception or other forms of protection when they did
become sexually active.
In short, the idea
that teens will remain celibate until they marry — and that they don't
need information about sex — says much more about the values and
fantasies of the people who are promoting these policies than it does
about teens.
--- Abstinence-only sex ed defies common sense
and then there's the just plain WRONG abstinence-only sex-education...
Many American youngsters participating in federally funded
abstinence-only programs have been taught over the past three years
that abortion can lead to sterility and suicide, that half the gay male
teenagers in the United States have tested positive for the AIDS virus,
and that touching a person's genitals "can result in pregnancy," a
congressional staff analysis has found... Among the misconceptions cited by Waxman's investigators:
• A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person."
• HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears.
• Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.
One curriculum, called "Me, My World, My Future," teaches that women
who have an abortion "are more prone to suicide" and that as many as 10
percent of them become sterile. This contradicts the 2001 edition of a
standard obstetrics textbook that says fertility is not affected by
elective abortion, the Waxman report said...
--- Some Abstinence Programs Mislead Teens, Report Says
---------------
yes, i seem to have gone off on a related tangent, which actually segues quite nicely into the article about McCain below
but first, here are my final words on the matter:
supporting the restriction or total federal ban on womens' reproductive rights hurts ALL women as well as society-as-a-whole
the measure of how well a country is operating is in how much control its women have over their own lives and their livelihoodsWE MUST WORK TO KEEP SUCH MATTERS A PERSONAL CHOICE
we must work to maintain our reproductive freedoms
are we just going to stand by while control over our own bodies is eroded by legislation?
heads up, ladies!
or someday, women in the US will be fighting far worse battles for our freedoms
and i don't need to tell you the socio-economic implications of THAT
(anybody read Margaret Attwood's A Handmaid's Tale? - what, you don't think it could happen?)
* For Your information: Abortion stats for the US and more - also, if you click on the link at the top of the page which says "State Center" - you can find info on legislation for each state when you click on its location on the map
----------------------------
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/031008WA.shtml
Go to Original
Why McCain Should Worry Women
By Robyn E. Blumner
The St. Petersburg Times
Sunday 09 March 2008
Sen. John McCain wants people to know that he is a true
conservative. The right flank of his party, particularly blowhards like
Rush Limbaugh, want to paint McCain as a closet pinko because he only
has an 82 percent rating with the American Conservative Union. But
McCain insists that his conservative credentials speak for themselves.
Believe him. They do.
What scares me most about McCain, beyond our 100-year
presence in Iraq, his itchy trigger finger relative to other foes, and
his enthusiasm for tax cuts for the rich, is his fiercely conservative
record on women's reproductive freedom. Here, there is no moderate
McCain or reach-across-the-aisle McCain. On issues related to abortion
and even birth control and sex education, McCain is as ideological as
any Operation Rescue activist crawling around in front of an abortion
clinic.
You want to know what's coming with a McCain presidency?
How about the overturning of Roe vs. Wade. I'm not kidding. The latest
case to reach the U.S. Supreme Court on abortion made it clear that the
two newest justices, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, will vote for
substantial incursions into abortion rights, if not their outright
elimination. It turns out that Roe isn't a "super-duper" precedent
after all. It's now hanging by the thread of 87-year-old Justice John
Paul Stevens' continued vitality.
The next president will be the decider on whether women's
emancipation from the slavery of the womb will continue in this
country. We are on the cusp of losing the right to control our bodies
and determine our family size. McCain promises as much.
Due to McCain's reputation as a maverick, many voters seem
to attach more moderate abortion views to him. In Florida's primary,
for example, 45 percent of those Republicans who said abortion should
be legal voted for McCain. Whereas the prochoice Rudy Giuliani won over
only 19 percent of the prochoice Republican vote.
But McCain's voting record is solidly antichoice. He said
directly in South Carolina that Roe "should be overturned" and strongly
reiterates that position on his campaign Web site. He told the American
Conservative Union that one of the three most important goals that he
wants to achieve as president is to promote "a nation of traditional
values that protects the rights of the unborn."
In accordance with these views, McCain promises to
"nominate strict constructionist judges," which is code for "will
overturn Roe if given half a chance."
McCain also supports the global gag rule - probably the
most backward foreign policy initiative since the importation of
slaves. This is the policy that bars foreign family planning
organizations from receiving U.S. funds if the group in any way advises
clients on abortion as an option or advocates for legal abortion - even
when using their own funds. We know that population control and family
planning is the only way for Third World nations to advance, yet the
United States and its antiabortion zealots have put a foot on the neck
of the most effective groups.
An intelligent person might think that someone as rabidly
antiabortion as McCain would be backing approaches to prevent unwanted
pregnancies, thereby, ipso facto, fewer abortions. Well, think again.
McCain is an antagonist of sensible family planning and
effective sex education. In 2005, he voted "no" on a $100-million
allocation for preventive health care services targeted at reducing
unintended pregnancies, particularly teen pregnancies. In 2006, he
voted against funding for comprehensive, medically accurate sex
education for teens.
McCain is much more comfortable with President Bush's wasteful and utterly ineffective abstinence-only approach.
The New York Times Web site reported the following exchange with a reporter in Iowa in March 2007:
Q:
"What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they
include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush's
policy, which is just abstinence?"
McCain: (Long pause) "Ahhh. I think I support the president's policy."
Q: "So no contraception, no counseling on contraception.
Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of
HIV?"
McCain: (Long pause) "You've stumped me."
Do you really have to say such idiotic things to win the
Republican nomination? It is an incontrovertible fact that the use of a
condom will help interfere with HIV transmission. But I guess McCain
sees it as a fact too liberal to acknowledge. Jeesh.
Now that the senator from Arizona has locked up the
Republican nomination, he may be spending less time asserting his
conservative bona fides and more time focusing on his occasional
bipartisanship. This appeal will help to blur his record. Yet any voter
who worries about government dictating to women what they can do with
their bodies needs to understand the danger that McCain poses. Roe
can't survive another president like Bush, and McCain is promising to
be just like him.
